Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Help, Harry, I don't understand (little OT)
John H wrote:
On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:34:28 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: On Fri, 30 Jan 2004 18:20:31 -0500, Harry Krause wrote: John H wrote: I need some help with this: During the debate last night, John Kerry, a Democrat guy, said that Bush was greatly exaggerating the terrorist threat. Do you remember that? On his web site is the statement, "John Kerry has the courage to roll back George Bush’s tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans so we can invest in homeland security." I'm sure there is some rational explanation for this apparent ambiguity, but damn if I can figure it out. Help. John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! I didn't watch the program in question, nor have I read any transcripts. There are many ways Bush has lied and continues to lie about the terrorist threats. I don't see where that fact conflicts with what you say is Kerry's statement about cutting tax breaks for millionaires and investing the proceeds in homeland security. As an example, and again, this may or may not have anything to do with what Kerry said or is considering: Bush has done virtually nothing to protect our ports from what may be inside the containers on container ships. It is well-known that our ports are virtually unprotected. Because of Bush's wasting our tax dollars in Iraq and because he cut taxes, there isn't enough money to do the port scans properly. If tax revenues were increased and properly spent, there might well be funds to inspect the cargos of ships. Is that clear enough for you? If the threat is so exaggerated, why spend the money -- the trillions it would take to inspect the millions of containers entering the country each year? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! Yes, indeed, and why invade Iraq, kill thousands of Iraqis, see 500+ American soldiers killed...if the threat is exaggerated and you're the president and you are too stupid to realize that ...or you don't care one way or the other, because it was high on your agenda to invade Iraq no matter what? Does your veering off on a tangent mean that you can't answer the question? John H On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay! No one is saying there is no threat from terrorism, John. Surely even you must understand that. Our attacks and invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq had nothing to do with protection of United States soil, and everything to do with the agenda of a failing president. Bush exaggerated the threats from Afghanistan and Iraq and doesn't understand to this day the threats from terrorism. He seems to have no idea that for the most part, modern terrorism is stateless. The man is a simpleton, and he cannot think beyond simpleton answers. -- Email sent to is never read. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
OT--The French...again! | General | |||
Hi Harry | General | |||
Harry at the lunch counter | General | |||
Gould, jps, NOYB, Jim, Harry, and a cast of thousands | General |